Jump to content
IGNORED

After Brexit complications.


Tipps69

Recommended Posts

Just reading Sky Sports paper gossip & there is a paragraph there saying that the government are considering giving Premium League teams that are giving England players extended game time, extra leeway with regards to signing foreign players after Brexit & it highlights Chelsea as being an example!

So Chelsea’s transfer ban could of actually done them a favour in more ways than one, it’s allowed them to use Abraham, Tomori, Mount & James when they otherwise probably wouldn’t of got game time while they spent millions more on foreign imports but the added benefit now is that once Brexit takes affect, the rules won’t be so stringent on them! Is that not kind of defeating the point of Brexit, to an extent? And then having used those extra English players, we’re going to reward you with allowing you to replace them with more foreign imports?!?

I’m not politically inclined & have paid little attention to Brexit but this seems more than a little strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr X said:

It is interesting the extensive impact that Brexit is going to have on the restriction of foreign players into the Premiership and Football League, it could hopefully help the England team!

I've never understood the argument that foreign players in the premier league harm the national team.  I think if anything it helps them because they're playing against different styles of players more regularly and at an overall higher level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tipps69 said:

Just reading Sky Sports paper gossip & there is a paragraph there saying that the government are considering giving Premium League teams that are giving England players extended game time, extra leeway with regards to signing foreign players after Brexit & it highlights Chelsea as being an example!

So Chelsea’s transfer ban could of actually done them a favour in more ways than one, it’s allowed them to use Abraham, Tomori, Mount & James when they otherwise probably wouldn’t of got game time while they spent millions more on foreign imports but the added benefit now is that once Brexit takes affect, the rules won’t be so stringent on them! Is that not kind of defeating the point of Brexit, to an extent? And then having used those extra English players, we’re going to reward you with allowing you to replace them with more foreign imports?!?

I’m not politically inclined & have paid little attention to Brexit but this seems more than a little strange.

What is this “point” you speak of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

What is this “point” you speak of?

Well I thought part of Brexit & with regards to the entire football situation was that it was supposed to limit the amount of foreign players that would be allowed / entitled to play over here & now because Chelsea have spent 6 months encouraging their English players with game time, they are now going to reward Chelsea by potentially allowing them to bring more foreign players in that maybe the likes of Arsenal & Man City etc won’t be allowed because they haven’t encouraged their English players by giving them game time.

Chelsea haven’t particularly done this through choice, more by the fact that they were banned from following their previous blueprint of signing many foreign players at a huge cost while their young English players tended to drift to other teams.

But having now played their young English talent, they will be encouraged to sign this expensive foreign talent again at the cost of bringing through the youngsters. Or am I wrong?

Is this not going against the grain? Like I said, I don’t follow politics & have no interest in it & maybe I’ve got completely the wrong end of the stick but I’m aiming this at the football side of things rather than the entire Brexit / political side of things & that’s why I’ve posted this in the football forum rather than the politics sub forum (which I’ve never actually visited).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

Well I thought part of Brexit & with regards to the entire football situation was that it was supposed to limit the amount of foreign players that would be allowed / entitled to play over here & now because Chelsea have spent 6 months encouraging their English players with game time, they are now going to reward Chelsea by potentially allowing them to bring more foreign players in that maybe the likes of Arsenal & Man City etc won’t be allowed because they haven’t encouraged their English players by giving them game time.

Chelsea haven’t particularly done this through choice, more by the fact that they were banned from following their previous blueprint of signing many foreign players at a huge cost while their young English players tended to drift to other teams.

But having now played their young English talent, they will be encouraged to sign this expensive foreign talent again at the cost of bringing through the youngsters. Or am I wrong?

Is this not going against the grain? Like I said, I don’t follow politics & have no interest in it & maybe I’ve got completely the wrong end of the stick but I’m aiming this at the football side of things rather than the entire Brexit / political side of things & that’s why I’ve posted this in the football forum rather than the politics sub forum (which I’ve never actually visited).

I don't think the amount of foreign players was a serious political motivation really, just a possible knock-on effect which some see as a positive others as a negative. Hasn't been seriously discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr X said:

It is interesting the extensive impact that Brexit is going to have on the restriction of foreign players into the Premiership and Football League, it could hopefully help the England team!

 

53 minutes ago, Roe said:

I've never understood the argument that foreign players in the premier league harm the national team.  I think if anything it helps them because they're playing against different styles of players more regularly and at an overall higher level.

Without trying to be political, listen to the horse sh1t Steven Barclay comes out with.

Obviously someone who knows eff all about football, and apparently less about the country’s existing work permit rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely from next month the same rules for non- EU players will apply to all “overseas” players.

Don’t see why there should be any special cases regarding “required critical skills” for the good of the nation as with doctors, scientists, engineers etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, reddevon said:

Surely from next month the same rules for non- EU players will apply to all “overseas” players.

Don’t see why there should be any special cases regarding “required critical skills” for the good of the nation as with doctors, scientists, engineers etc.

Nothing will change for 12 months until all the trade deals etc are signed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be an issue for the likes of Arsenal who have previously had European players who aren’t internationals but could come here under EU working rules. That all changes at the end of the year, when presumably European players will be liable to work permits, as per non-EU players.

If we really wanted to increase the number of British players in the English leagues we would institute limits on foreign players as per Spain and Italy, but even then teams try to get round it such as Barcelona trying to get a Portuguese passport for Coutinho or  a Spanish passport for Suarez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO Brexit was never about getting rid of foreigners that were unique and provided high quality, surely we want the best and the brightest from around the world here earning millions and paying tax. It was about not allowing anyone in that wanted to use public service, get paid minimum wage and live in a tent and send money "home" and undercut the average worker.

Anyone that will earn over 100k will be allowed in the country with no problem IMO.

High quality, high wealth, high inequality (some very rich) will likely be our future. Which has got to be better than low quality, low wealth, low inequality (everyone poor) as the other option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, reddevon said:

Surely from next month the same rules for non- EU players will apply to all “overseas” players.

Don’t see why there should be any special cases regarding “required critical skills” for the good of the nation as with doctors, scientists, engineers etc.

Main reason being the insane income the government get through taxes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Pezo said:

IMO Brexit was never about getting rid of foreigners that were unique and provided high quality, surely we want the best and the brightest from around the world here earning millions and paying tax. It was about not allowing anyone in that wanted to use public service, get paid minimum wage and live in a tent and send money "home" and undercut the average worker.

Anyone that will earn over 100k will be allowed in the country with no problem IMO.

High quality, high wealth, high inequality (some very rich) will likely be our future. Which has got to be better than low quality, low wealth, low inequality (everyone poor) as the other option. 

Brilliant. So the rich and powerful can do what they want, and ordinary people will get dicked over. Maybe you earn over 100k in which case, you'll be fine. But if you don't, I really don't understand how you can view this as a positive thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Pezo said:

IMO Brexit was never about getting rid of foreigners that were unique and provided high quality, surely we want the best and the brightest from around the world here earning millions and paying tax. It was about not allowing anyone in that wanted to use public service, get paid minimum wage and live in a tent and send money "home" and undercut the average worker.

Anyone that will earn over 100k will be allowed in the country with no problem IMO.

High quality, high wealth, high inequality (some very rich) will likely be our future. Which has got to be better than low quality, low wealth, low inequality (everyone poor) as the other option. 

******* great.  Can’t wait. ?

@City oz - see you in Perth on the next available flight, got room for 4???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bas's perfect hattrick said:

Brilliant. So the rich and powerful can do what they want, and ordinary people will get dicked over. Maybe you earn over 100k in which case, you'll be fine. But if you don't, I really don't understand how you can view this as a positive thing

This is how the world works I'm afraid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Bas's perfect hattrick said:

Brilliant. So the rich and powerful can do what they want, and ordinary people will get dicked over. Maybe you earn over 100k in which case, you'll be fine. But if you don't, I really don't understand how you can view this as a positive thing

No I don't earn over 100k but what would you prefer - everyone earn 12k a year and we can't afford public services or some earn millions, some earn hundreds of thousands and some earn thousands? 

Under both scenarios no one gets dicked, the rich pay for the poor! But the rich do want safety for the money they are paying. 

As a society we have a big challenge coming up, we currently have about a 10% of working age people incapable of working due to there level of intellect, with automation and AI that is likely to rise the only way of paying for the people incapable of work is to have people that can pay for them.

As a muti billionaire do you think SL is dicking you or subsidising your football and bringing you a higher quality than the fan base could naturally afford?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pezo said:

IMO Brexit was never about getting rid of foreigners that were unique and provided high quality, surely we want the best and the brightest from around the world here earning millions and paying tax. It was about not allowing anyone in that wanted to use public service, get paid minimum wage and live in a tent and send money "home" and undercut the average worker.

Anyone that will earn over 100k will be allowed in the country with no problem IMO.

High quality, high wealth, high inequality (some very rich) will likely be our future. Which has got to be better than low quality, low wealth, low inequality (everyone poor) as the other option. 

I believe I'm right in saying that non EU immigration was always higher. As for 'undercutting the average worker', that only happened because there were no controls on exploitative employers, had there been legislation to ban this, a level playing field would have been created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

******* great.  Can’t wait. ?

@City oz - see you in Perth on the next available flight, got room for 4???

You cant have it both ways - my personal belief is that inequality is the biggest problem in our society at the moment and I would prefer everyone earned millions but thats not possible as inflation would push up interest rates and everyone gets poor again, its a better than the scenario of everyone earning 12k and not being able to afford nurse's. You can't have public services without the people that pay for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pezo said:

You cant have it both ways - my personal belief is that inequality is the biggest problem in our society at the moment and I would prefer everyone earned millions but thats not possible as inflation would push up interest rates and everyone gets poor again, its a better than the scenario of everyone earning 12k and not being able to afford nurse's. You can't have public services without the people that pay for them.

It’s probably best we don’t take this down the politics route.  I’ll leave it there, I won’t even add a final shot.

If this was Footie, I’d be getting my pitch maps and magnetic dots out ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

I believe I'm right in saying that non EU immigration was always higher. As for 'undercutting the average worker', that only happened because there were no controls on exploitative employers, had there been legislation to ban this, a level playing field would have been created.

Yes EU immigration was always higher and I imagine still will be because of proximity. Under EU rules your not allowed to discriminate against EU nationals so if someone wanted the job and asked for 30k and someone wanted minimum wage - all things being equal as the employer you would choose the minimum wage employee of course and maximise profits for them and there investors.

The government can't and shouldn't put in controls against exploitative employers, it's for individuals to decide if they are being exploited or not and if they are they should do something about it (leave). Even if they wanted to how does the government put in controls against exploitative employers that are employing people that are willing to work for less than others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pezo said:

The government can't and shouldn't put in controls against exploitative employers, it's for individuals to decide if they are being exploited or not and if they are they should do something about it (leave). Even if they wanted to how does the government put in controls against exploitative employers that are employing people that are willing to work for less than others?

I don't agree with any of that. One of the functions of government should be to ensure no citizen is exploited.

 

10 minutes ago, Pezo said:

Yes EU immigration was always higher

Was/is it?

What percentage of UK immigration is from the EU?
The EU born made up 5.5% of the total UK population in 2018, while non-EU born people made up 8.8%. The EU born thus made up 39% of the migrant population in 2018, up from 29% in 2000.30 Sep 2019
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

I think you would find the following blog interesting, https://gimms.org.uk/blogs/

It explains how money really works in a modern fiat economy. There is loads of interesting MMT stuff out there.

After a quick read I do appreciate the point of view but the solutions seem to about a social fixes and aiming for an ideology rather than individual people changing - the problem is identified correctly but the solution is too loose and top down, what do individuals need to do? - what are they going to get for what they do. IMO if you want to fix a society then you have to enable the individuals that make up that society, fix there own house's - if everyone does that then then everyone in the society is ready to move forward.

I will continue to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pezo said:

After a quick read I do appreciate the point of view but the solutions seem to about a social fixes and aiming for an ideology rather than individual people changing - the problem is identified correctly but the solution is too loose and top down, what do individuals need to do? - what are they going to get for what they do. IMO if you want to fix a society then you have to enable the individuals that make up that society, fix there own house's - if everyone does that then then everyone in the society is ready to move forward.

I will continue to read.

MMT is about how money is created in the modern sovereign economy and how governments can utilise it to enable their citizens to enjoy a far more equitable and fulfilling existence.

 

Professor Richard Murphy's blog is very accessible and well worth reading on regular basis. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

I don't agree with any of that. One of the functions of government should be to ensure no citizen is exploited.

 

Was/is it?

What percentage of UK immigration is from the EU?
The EU born made up 5.5% of the total UK population in 2018, while non-EU born people made up 8.8%. The EU born thus made up 39% of the migrant population in 2018, up from 29% in 2000.30 Sep 2019

You don't have to agree but it's an interesting subject and not a view I've head before. Isn't it a higher priority within government to ensure no one citizen is persecuted against?

I would prefer to be exploited knowing I can leave the exploitor rather than be persecuted for the country I'm from everywhere within a whole country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...